Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Fix the Electoral College

federicolopriore.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#91

Post by Ekaros »

int_19h wrote: post #40
flopriore wrote: post #2

Hello, here is my proposal to improve the Electoral College. The basic idea is to allocate electors proportionally in each state with the Jefferson method (aka d'Hondt method) rather than using a "winner-take-all" system. What do you think about it? PS: I'm not from the US, so an American perspective on that would be extremely appreciated :)

Our problem isn't that there's a lack of ideas on how to reform. It's that said reform requires amending the constitution, which in US is contingent on 3/4 of states (specifically, their legislatures) ratifying the amendment. It is a very high bar in general, but is especially hard to break through when what you propose is virtually certain to change the balance of political power in the country.

In this case isn't it up to states to decide how they select electors? So in sense, nothing stops any state from assigning them in some proportional manner.

And one could even ask, if it is electors who decide why not get them campaign? Not voting for president, but voting for person who votes for president. Isn't that the intention of EC anyway?

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#92

Post by throw0101d »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #56

I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic. Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say. It works because of the state system.

> Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say.

In 2020 there were more Republican presidential votes in California (6,006,518[1]) than there were in Texas (5,890,347[2]). The Republican votes in California basically had no say in determining the outcome of the election. Was that fair to them?

There were more GOP votes in New York state (3,251,997[3]) than in Ohio (3,154,834[4]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#93

Post by [deleted] »

twoodfin wrote: post #88
yongjik wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... In each of the seventeen states and DC, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been passed by the state legislature, and signed by the executive branch, except for Hawaii (whose governor tried to veto it but it was overriden). The bills followed all the proper steps to be signed into respective state's laws. It's not some kind of "agreement." It's…

State laws incompatible with the Constitution are null & void. “We’re going to award our electors according to a compact never approved by Congress and that by design disenfranchises some fraction of our citizens who voted in a Federal election.”

[deleted]

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#94

Post by hagbard_c »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #56

I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic. Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say. It works because of the state system.

Indeed, I don't see any of the popular vote alternatives - no matter which name they carry - solve the problems the electoral college in combination with the state vote depending on population density solves. Here's what I wrote in an earlier post on this subject. This was an answer in response to the idea that a few densely populated coastal cities should determine who became the president:

No, the local elections should - and will - be determined by those cities, the state elections should be determined by the inhabitants of the states and the federal elections by 'the states' in a weighted manner so as to make sure less densely populated states also have a say in all things federal. If you think this gives too much power to the less densely populated states I'd suggest this is caused by the idea of the federal state having too much power, not by the electoral college or anything related to it. Don't want to have people from 'fly-over states' to have a say in ${issue}? Make sure ${issue} is handled at the state or local level and those rednecks, deplorables, 'garbage' and hillbillies don't get to have a say in it while thanking you for keeping out of their affairs.

The federal state should be as small as possible and only busy itself in things which by their nature can not be handled at the local, county or state level. Nearly all if not all of the issues of importance to those who are in favour of having the popular vote decide who becomes president should be decided at state or lower level.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#95

Post by flopriore »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #19
flopriore wrote: post #2

Hello, here is my proposal to improve the Electoral College. The basic idea is to allocate electors proportionally in each state with the Jefferson method (aka d'Hondt method) rather than using a "winner-take-all" system. What do you think about it? PS: I'm not from the US, so an American perspective on that would be extremely appreciated :)

Would you implement such a thing for the EU leadership? Because the United States was meant to be more like that than it was a country like say France.

In the EU there is already a similar system because, in the parliament, the number of MEPs is not really proportional to the population (Germany has 84,48 million inhabitants and 96 MEPs, so 1 every 880,000 people, while Malta has 553,000 people and 6 MEPs so 1 MEP every 92,000 people).

The difference is MEPs are appointed proportionally within each state (so if a party gets 40% in a state, it will get ca. 40% of the state's MEPs)

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#96

Post by wakawaka28 »

litoE wrote: post #8

Another approach that is in the works is the so-called States Compact whereby each state would assign all its electors to the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide . This has the advantage that no change to the Constitution is needed. Currently, several States have agreed to this, and the Compact will be activated once enough States sign on that provide more than the 270 electoral votes required to win the el…

That makes no sense. You would be surrendering your state's autonomy to outsiders. There is nothing particularly wrong with the current system except the perception that the occasional fraction of a percent discrepancy in popular vote vs electoral vote is devastating somehow.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#97

Post by wakawaka28 »

xnx wrote: post #60
627467 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, it's always the sore losers who complain about this. There's are good reasons to keep the system as it is, regardless of who wins. But the discussion is always driven by losers.

> There's are good reasons to keep the system as it is, I've read some of the reasons, but none sound good to me. What do you like about the electoral college?

It represents states according to their population sizes and allocates representation to those constituents, not some amorphous "majority" (which is subject to manipulation). It is also not sensitive to voter turnout. The potential gap between the popular vote and the electoral college numbers is narrow and only of theoretical interest. If the race is that tight, it's very sensitive to turnout and cheating, so the popular vote does not mean what you think it means anyway.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#98

Post by bwanab »

627467 wrote: post #55
bwanab wrote: post #31

Historically the electoral college was a compromise that allowed for the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of taxation and voting without having them vote. Consider a state like South Carolina which at the time had about 50% of its population as black. How could the 3/5 of the 50% of the people get added to the total otherwise? Any method would be a hack, but this one had the benefit of being able…

> If you're American living in one of the majority of states that aren't "swing" states, I don't think you can escape the feeling when you vote for president that you're going through a kind of charade since the winner is going to be determined by some small number of voters in 6 states. I don't get the repeating of this perspective, didn't he win the popular vote this time? How did "small number of voters in 6 state…

I'm not making any statement about any particular election. This statement is just as true for a conservative voter in Massachusetts as it is for a liberal voter in Tennessee.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#99

Post by analog31 »

big-green-man wrote: post #66
analog31 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem is that it takes power away from one party.

Yes, and as of today that party would be the one youre (probably) not thinking of.

To clarify, and hopefully not to politicize, I belong to the Democratic Party. I think the Democrats fell out of love with the electoral college years ago. Likewise with gerrymandering. Even if we may have been complicit in creating those systems.

At this point, of course there's always a risk that something could go awry, but I'm willing to accept the risks inherent in a one-person-one-vote system -- essentially an elective republic.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#100

Post by big-green-man »

analog31 wrote: post #99
big-green-man wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and as of today that party would be the one youre (probably) not thinking of.

To clarify, and hopefully not to politicize, I belong to the Democratic Party. I think the Democrats fell out of love with the electoral college years ago. Likewise with gerrymandering. Even if we may have been complicit in creating those systems. At this point, of course there's always a risk that something could go awry, but I'm willing to accept the risks inherent in a one-person-one-vote system -- essentially an…

Well, of by "awry" you mean that, as has happened this year, the Republicans get the majority popular vote, then it's not really a principled stance on the fairness or little d democratic effectiveness of the electoral college. If you're fine with still losing elections, I can't say you're unprincipled.

Both parties gerrymander. Both parties engage in "principled" discussions supporting positions seeking only expedient means to their practical objectives. I may be convinced that you believe in purely democratic election of the president, I'm not convinced that the Democratic party as an organization truly does.

I'm not a Republican. But I do like the existing system, where one house in the legislature represents the states, the other represents the people, and the executive is selected by the states with impunity regarding the criteria of selecting him. I'm also very happy that every state has independently decided that their citizens should be the arbiter of that outcome. I would not be happy with that though being encoded in such a way that this was not optional for states, I prefer the status quo, where it is just the stable state of the system and emergent out of existing incentives.

I'd be happier if the electoral college was closer to the popular vote, but my preferred method for achieving that would be the ratification of the congressional apportionment amendment, because it empowers the people at the expense of the federal government and the parties, and also empowers them in the legislature as well as the executive branch, whereas just direct vote only empowers them in the executive branch, not the legislature, and does so at the expense of the states and not at all at the expense of the parties.

Post reply on HN